[Unthinking Majority]

Most of what you wrote was not argument.

It was, instead, a moral judgement about not following the law.

Do you have an argument?

If everyone followed the law there would be no violence between Israelis and Palestinians, no blockades, no accusations of genocide, no terrorism, there would be a 2-state solution per the 1947 UN Partition plan that would have given more territory to the Palestinians than pre-1967 borders, any protestor would still get to protest on campuses and no police would need to touch any of them while all students get to enjoy all of campus property as per their right.

Meanwhile you have NEVER condemned the Oct 7 attacks for obvious reasons.

Now tell me about how this is "just my feelings" and other bad faith nonsense.

[Pants-of-dog]

If the claim is that Brown is being antisemitic by divesting, please show how.

[Pants-of-dog]

If everyone followed the law there would be no violence between Israelis and ……

If everyone had followed the law in Nazi Germany, there would be no Israel at all.

The continued existence of Jews in Europe is a result of people not following the law.

The claim that all laws are good and should be followed is not backed up by history.

[wat0n]

^ he seems to be referring to international humanitarian law.

If the claim is that Brown is being antisemitic by divesting, please show how.

What student groups are behind their vote and what are their goals regarding Israel?

[Pants-of-dog]

If the claim is that none of this would be happening if the IDF and the Israeli government followed international law and were not committing a genocide, then yes, that is correct.

There would be far fewer protests, and they would be far less problematic.

The letter written by the AGs is here:

https://arkansasag.gov/wp-content/uploa ... ration.pdf

It never explains how the divestment would be antisemitism.

It does explain how it would be illegal, since many states have criminalized boycotting Israel. Apparently, political choices in consumption are now part of the state mandate. Freedom!

[wat0n]

@Unthinking Majority mentioned both sides here, didn't he?

Or will @Pants-of-dog justify October 7th, itself a violation of international law, again?

[Pants-of-dog]

If the IDF and Israeli government had not been committing genocide prior to October 7, it is doubtful October 7 would have happened.

[wat0n]

So @Pants-of-dog is indeed using bogus genocide claims to justify October 7th. Not surprising from leftists, at all.

[Pants-of-dog]

My argument was that the oppression by the IDF and Israeli government CAUSED the October 7th attack.

If the reply is that oppression by the IDF and Israeli government does not justify the October 7th attack but CAUSED said attack, I agree.

[wat0n]

That is a claim, not an argument. It is also a justification for the October 7th attack, since such claim has no backing.

[Pants-of-dog]

What backing would convince you that October 7 was caused by Israeli oppression?

[wat0n]

You could perhaps show Israeli oppression is the only explanation for the type of Palestinian irredentism Hamas represents.

[Pants-of-dog]

I did not think there would be any evidence that could be convincing enough.

Now, since the AGs who wrote that letter were unable to show how divestment is antisemitic, and no one in this thread could do so either, the claim is still in need of a rational explanation.

If divestment is bigotry, then the anti-Apartheid movement that isolated South Africa was anti-white. Since this claim is ridiculous, it is difficult to argue that divestment is bigotry.

[wat0n]

Oh so @Pants-of-dog cannot substantiate his claims again, just as he could not do that with his conspiracy theory that there were businesses pressuring schools to punish anti-Israel speech by withholding donations. Unsurprising.

[Unthinking Majority]

The claim that all laws are good and should be followed is not backed up by history.

Sure, but in this case its 100% true. You have been unable to show that its false in this case and have presented no arguments at all other than "police are bad and hurt people", which isn't an argument because that's an example of police not following the law.

And had Nazi Germany followed the international law created in a post-1945 world like we live in now the Jewish holocaust wouldn't have happened and WWII wouldn't have happened. Russia invading Ukraine wouldn't have happened either, the examples are endless.

Let us know why a group of students should be able to occupy university property that doesn't belong to them and segregate the student population at their whim just because they're upset about an issue. Your argument so far is "feelings".

The argument that universities should divest from Israeli businesses is nonsense and discriminatory. There are no calls to divest from any other countries yet many countries have dubious human rights records. School investments becoming political opens an endless can of worms. If the students don't like it they can go to another university.

[Verv]

Jews seem to be very thin on the ground in what is now Israel before the Great War.

Google is your friend:

Out of an estimated population of 318,000 (excluding the Bedouin tribes) Frankl, L. A., Nach Jerusalem!, Vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1858), p. 500, gives the number of the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine as 10,639 in the mid-1850s

Thomson, W. M., The Land and the Book (London, 1894), p. 167, estimated the Jewish population as 11,100 in the late 1850s (7,000 in Jerusalem, 2,000 in Safad, 1,500 in Tiberias and 600 in Hebron)

André Chouraqui, L'Alliance Israélite universelle et la renaissance juive contemporaine (1860–1960) (Paris, 1965), p. 451. In a report to the Alliance Israélite Universelle dated 25/12/1868, Netter estimated the Jewish population of Palestine at 13,000, of which 9/10 lived in the four “Holy Cities”.

Oh yes, I know all that, it's an important aspect of why I do not support the formation of Israel.

But, ideally, there would be a free, secular Palestine that allowed Jews to come and live as equals in the state.

Let me also clarify that they would have the right to put limitations on immigration - why not? Each nation has that right. It is one of the most basic functions of government to enforce border controls.

[Verv]

@Pants-of-dog quote NYU's regulations.



Well, had the bipartition been upheld I don't think it would be fair or accurate to say that the creation of either state would have been at the cost of disenfranchising anyone. It's also the point of the 2SS.



I don't think you can or should try to impose a character of the state in either side. If majorities of both populations don't share your vision, it just won't work.

If I were Palestinian I would very much prefer a secular democratic Palestinian state, that may or may not identify as an Arab state but which does not try to forcibly assimilate non-Arabs like it happens in neighboring Syria (for instance). As non-Palestinian, I would advice them to aim for this.

Yet not only I'm not Palestinian but in any event it's clear to me this is just not going to happen. The realistic solution is for Palestine to be like Egypt, aspiring to be like Turkey at best.

Israel is a more complicated case, since there are no examples it can look at. And it seems to me there is no consensus even on what it means, exactly, for Israel to be a Jewish state.



You can find all sorts of views. The only real consensus, though, is that Jews do not seek to convert people or spread the culture, and there is a diversity of views about those who willingly adopt it.

Some Jews react with skepticism, others embrace them completely, others sit somewhere in the middle. Personally, I've seen some who convert and become very religious/hardline and I have trouble understanding that but then again I'm fully secular but I otherwise don't see anything wrong with converts as long as it's voluntary and FWIW I think it's better this is not the result of active proselytism.

Furthermore, I also believe that we should not push our Jewishness on our children but then again my view may be unusual since I'm from a mixed family already. I think that, if my children prefer not to be religious or even identify as Jewish at all, I may not like it yet it is their right to and they will have their reasons. If Jewish culture can't be appealing on its own, without constantly shoving it in our throats (or actively seeking converts) then there's a reason for it. Culture and religion need to evolve just like most ideas do.



This is an interesting topic indeed, and a complicated one too (perhaps for the Spirituality subforum or the thread there). I agree most people can indeed become evil over time but I'd say the Book of Genesis suggests quite clearly at least some humans won't. After all, if this wasn't the case, God would have never commanded Noah to build the Ark to begin with and humanity would have been destroyed. The moral of that story is that not only humans are able to resist evil, even if few of them succeed, but also that we are not responsible for the sins our parents committed since Noah's story takes places several generations after Adam and Eve are casted out of Paradise. Furthermore, this does not seem to be a divine attribute since it is God who contacts Noah, which at least I interpret as meaning this resistance to commit evil is indeed something Noah is able to do on his own without needing to be coerced to do so.

It also teaches us that, since most humans indeed fell to evil, we should probably not assume we're not one of them yet we also can't just assume others will. I do not doubt for a second I am personally able to commit evil deeds, and maybe I have (can we honestly judge ourselves?), but I am not so quick to assume others have done so even if they also probably have it in them. In a way, it is a good way to teach against the moral grandstanding that is so common nowadays.

Some quick takes:

(1) The Jews who went to Palestine have no right to reject our interpretation of what should have happened. We are their sponsors, more or less, and we fund the entire operation, and we ended up fighting for the legitimization of the creation of that state...

The whole thing exists because of the Western governments that either approved it or lent their muscle to forcing it into existence.

We should dictate the terms of it...

And we should dictate the terms of how it is reconstituted as a secular republic where Jews & non-Jews live in peace with one another, with guaranteed rights for all.

The Palestinians had a right to reject this vision of a secular republic with an egalitarian approach as it really was their land as they were the natives of it, but that ship has sailed. Oddly enough, their future state has the ability to become more advanced and with greater social justice by forcing this deal onto them.

Now... I do not want to hurt Jewish people or interests. I think it's a shame what has happened because the Jews are victims of the situation as well... Not as much as the Palestinians, of course, and they did travel there to be part of this ethnostate project... But like, I do not revel in upsetting Jewish and Israeli people.

I want this all to be solved peacefully and with people to be happy in its resolution, if not immediatley, in at least ten years from the point it is resolved...

(2) Your statement about not pushing Jewishness is very interesting to me. I feel like my kid will be half of me, ethnically, and will also be exposed to the Church and baptized and I will attempt to keep them Orthodox (though never through force, brainwashing, isolation, etc., of course!)...

Perhaps we agree fully... But I guess I would insist, if my kid said, "Well, no, I am not American/white, etc., I am <specifically not that,>" I would push back to get them to admit their half-Americanness, their half-Whiteness, etc., but merely as a matter of point.

Perhaps you'd do the same... If your wife is not Jewish, you might still insist that they are half-Jewish, right? Perhaps not culturally Jewish, but there is something to be said about having a Jewish parent. It can't be erased. It shouldn't be erased.... I am of the school of, "Why would you erase any kind of point of identity?"

(3) I'd love to discuss original sin and ancestral sin and the Jewish perspective at length sometime in the Spirituality subforum..!

[Verv]

So the NYU makes the assumption that Zionism is only ever a code word for Jew and any criticism of Zionism is coded antisemitism.

Thus, the regulations equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

This stuff is just wild.

This is like equating the criticism of Apartheid or the 'White Australia' policy with anti-White racism.

"We know the real reason all these people are out here protesting against Apartheid in South Africa is their hatred of whties, and that their real goal is to create a broad anti-white movement that progressively disenfranchises white people not just in South Africa, but also in Europe & North America..!"

"I personally feel unsafe as a white person when I see anti-apartheid protesters because I know they are just out there because they hate us white people here in Texas. While at the protest, I started shouting at some of them, drawing attention to the fact that 'black people' don't really exist, the blacks in South Africa are actually all from very different tribes who came recently and have no right to the land... And one person said, 'Shut up, whitey won't rule over us!'

"Can you imagine what it's like hearing such a slur for white people as a white person..? We know what this is really about - it's not about Apartheid, it's about ME as a white person...

"I can never feel safe on campus again until criticism of apartheid and other dog whistles for anti-white racism are removed..!"

[wat0n]

Some quick takes:

(1) The Jews who went to Palestine have no right to reject our interpretation of what should have happened. We are their sponsors, more or less, and we fund the entire operation, and we ended up fighting for the legitimization of the creation of that state...

The whole thing exists because of the Western governments that either approved it or lent their muscle to forcing it into existence.

We should dictate the terms of it...

And we should dictate the terms of how it is reconstituted as a secular republic where Jews & non-Jews live in peace with one another, with guaranteed rights for all.

The Palestinians had a right to reject this vision of a secular republic with an egalitarian approach as it really was their land as they were the natives of it, but that ship has sailed. Oddly enough, their future state has the ability to become more advanced and with greater social justice by forcing this deal onto them.

Now... I do not want to hurt Jewish people or interests. I think it's a shame what has happened because the Jews are victims of the situation as well... Not as much as the Palestinians, of course, and they did travel there to be part of this ethnostate project... But like, I do not revel in upsetting Jewish and Israeli people.

I want this all to be solved peacefully and with people to be happy in its resolution, if not immediatley, in at least ten years from the point it is resolved...

Well, I don't think that's why the West (basically the UK) initially took on the Mandate of Palestine. Let's not pretend there was no self-interest involved in that decision, and not simply a desire to support the Jews. That is also certainly not how the UK behaved either.

If the West wants to intervene more actively, it will at least have to send boots on the ground, even more so since your position is clearly a minority position there. But I don't really think the West cares that much about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and more importantly the West also seems to prefer two states.

As I said, it's also possible to go from two states to a binational one at some point in the future. Not with this generation, but maybe after decades of sustained peace both peoples may choose to (or may want to form a confederation, which seems more likely).

(2) Your statement about not pushing Jewishness is very interesting to me. I feel like my kid will be half of me, ethnically, and will also be exposed to the Church and baptized and I will attempt to keep them Orthodox (though never through force, brainwashing, isolation, etc., of course!)...

Perhaps we agree fully... But I guess I would insist, if my kid said, "Well, no, I am not American/white, etc., I am <specifically not that,>" I would push back to get them to admit their half-Americanness, their half-Whiteness, etc., but merely as a matter of point.

Perhaps you'd do the same... If your wife is not Jewish, you might still insist that they are half-Jewish, right? Perhaps not culturally Jewish, but there is something to be said about having a Jewish parent. It can't be erased. It shouldn't be erased.... I am of the school of, "Why would you erase any kind of point of identity?"

Indeed, I mean, Jewishness is still part of my own identity (one half of it at least). But ultimately it's each of my children's choice how to see themselves.

My brother in fact sees himself as having Jewish ancestry, more than as a Jew or half-Jew.

(3) I'd love to discuss original sin and ancestral sin and the Jewish perspective at length sometime in the Spirituality subforum..!

Well, the discussion also has its secular counterpart and interestingly you can also see different camps on that.

This stuff is just wild.

This is like equating the criticism of Apartheid or the 'White Australia' policy with anti-White racism.

"We know the real reason all these people are out here protesting against Apartheid in South Africa is their hatred of whties, and that their real goal is to create a broad anti-white movement that progressively disenfranchises white people not just in South Africa, but also in Europe & North America..!"

"I personally feel unsafe as a white person when I see anti-apartheid protesters because I know they are just out there because they hate us white people here in Texas. While at the protest, I started shouting at some of them, drawing attention to the fact that 'black people' don't really exist, the blacks in South Africa are actually all from very different tribes who came recently and have no right to the land... And one person said, 'Shut up, whitey won't rule over us!'

"Can you imagine what it's like hearing such a slur for white people as a white person..? We know what this is really about - it's not about Apartheid, it's about ME as a white person...

"I can never feel safe on campus again until criticism of apartheid and other dog whistles for anti-white racism are removed..!"

That's not what the policy says. What the policy says is that you can't use "Zionist" as a code word for "Jew" or "Israeli" and as an excuse to discriminate, including through harassment or assault, on those grounds.

Taking it to your own example, it means you couldn't use Apartheid as an excuse to discriminate against South African students and the White Australia Policy to discriminate against Australian ones. Likewise, you couldn't use either policy as an excuse to discriminate against White students, including Americans.

Or to use another example, you can't use Hamas' islamism itself as an excuse to discriminate against Muslim students or against Palestinian students. Which is of course very reasonable.

[Deutschmania]

A 40-year-old activist has been indicted on arson charges after burning an Israeli flag during a protest at Columbia University in April.

James Carlson, who is unaffiliated with the Ivy League school in Morningside Heights, took the flag after someone else had stolen it from a Jewish person at the April 20 protest, according to the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. He then set it on fire with a lighter, the office said in a statement.

Carlson, a resident of Brooklyn, was also indicted for a subsequent incident in which he kicked and broke a glass panel in a police holding cell following his arrest at Columbia during an April 30 protest.

He was charged with arson in the fifth degree, a misdemeanor, and several counts of criminal mischief, including one felony, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said. He pleaded not guilty. “This defendant’s alleged activity went beyond legal and peaceful protest. Committing arson in a crowded protest endangers the safety of others, and this type of behavior will not be tolerated,” Bragg said.

Carlson was a repeat protester on Columbia’s campus last academic year, when people who were unaffiliated with the university took a central role in demonstrations that inspired copycats across the country. In addition to the flag-burning incident, he was charged with trespassing after being part of the group of anti-Israel activists who broke into and occupied Columbia’s Hamilton Hall in April. The university called in police to clear the building, resulting in dozens of arrests, after which Carlson allegedly broke the glass panel in the holding cell. Most of those arrested were released without charges.

Carlson is not a student, staffer or faculty member at Columbia, Bragg’s office said. The son of the late advertising executive Dick Tarlow, he owns a multi-million dollar townhouse in Park Slope and has a history of arrests dating to 2005, according to the New York Post. He is one of more than a quarter of the people arrested at the Hamilton Hall protest who were not affiliated with Columbia, according to the NYPD.

The role of outsiders in the protest had become a focal point in the aftermath of the police crackdown, and Mayor Eric Adams cited the alleged presence of “outside agitators” as a reason for ordering the NYPD to clear out the building.

The Hamilton Hall incident was the most high-profile clash in a year of protest and tensions surrounding the Israel-Hamas war. The war has continued to impact the campus as a new school year has begun. Last month, three Columbia deans resigned after sending disparaging texts about Jewish students; then Columbia President Minouche Shafik resigned, citing campus turmoil; and weeks later, a task force investigating antisemitism at the school reported “crushing” discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students. Jewish Telegraphic Agency

.... Last year, Goldstein wrote a letter castigating the government’s proposed judicial overhaul, and earlier, the group was one of many Jewish federations pushing unsuccessfully for a plan to expand a non-Orthodox section of the Western Wall. Jacobs said that regardless of the specific impact of a statement by UJA, it would add to a groundswell of support for a hostage and ceasefire deal.

“We can’t say what, if any, pressure is going to be effective on him. Certainly he has not yet responded to hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Israelis on the street or to a national strike,” Jacobs said of Netanyahu. “But the more pressure that’s coming from more corners, the more that will potentially help.”

In addition to Jacobs, the Sept. 5 letter was signed by Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum, who recently retired from Congregation Beit Simchat Torah; Rabbi Amichai Lau-Lavie, the founder of Lab-Shul; Rabbi Rachel Timoner of Congregation Beth Elohim and Rabbi Josh Weinberg of the Union for Reform Judaism.

Alongside the letter, a small group of Israelis living in New York City has been holding weekly protests outside UJA’s offices to demand the organization support a deal. Jacobs said the letter was in support of Israelis protesting in both Israel and New York.

“Aggression is not going to bring them back,” said Avital Shimshowitz, one of the organizers of the protest group, NYC 4 Kaplan, a reference to the Tel Aviv street where the largest demonstrations have taken place.

Referring to Netanyahu, she said, “It’s the American Jewish community that needs to step up and hold him accountable.”

Jacobs also argued that supporting a hostage and ceasefire deal would demonstrate that support for Israel does not always mean support for continuing the military campaign in Gaza.

“There’s often an idea that being pro-Israel means supporting the war, and wanting to the end the war means that you don’t care about the hostages and you don’t care about Israelis, and it’s completely the opposite,” Jacobs said. “The Israeli people, by and large, want this war to end, want the hostages to come home, and also want this government out, and that’s actually what it means to support Israel.” Jewish Telegraphic Agency